Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

kettlehead

Brussels paid a high price for six days on lockdown, with the city brought to a standstill as police hunted a suspected accomplice in the Paris terror attacks.

The cost of it all? An estimated €51.7 million a day.

The Free Market, a Belgian television program, calculated that businesses bore the brunt of the financial damage, an estimated €29.7 million. According to the show, which airs on the Flemish public broadcaster VRT, the cost to restaurants was €22 million.

The Belgian government raised the threat level to four — the highest level — on November 21, and lowered it to three on November 26. Bars were told to close early, and restaurants, museums, shops, schools and the entire metro system were shut for part of the week.

The cost of ramping up security could prove even more costly for Belgium. As police hunted for the fugitive Salah Abdeslam, who lived in the neighborhood of Molenbeek and is still at large, the police union demanded an additional €100 million to carry out their duties effectively across the country.

An expensive lockdown for the Belgians and they still missed their target. Not a good look for them. I'm still shocked that he managed to slip the net again.

fed up sick and tired

Nodin wrote: »

I would say that they, like Islam, are here so long they can't be considered alien. However, if we are to consider Islam "alien", then the same logic must be applied to Christianity, as it is also an import, albeit the one that hopped off the galley first.

You're still waffling. It has nothing to do with origins, and it has nothing to do with timelines. Ilkhanid gets that, and so does Irish Trajan. What's your problem here ?

With added emphasis to help you along...

Are you suggesting that Catholicism and Protestantism are alien to European culture or heritage, or at least have no more relation to them than Islam does ?

So, are you saying that in cultural and heritage terms, Catholicism and Protestantism are of no more significance to Europe than Islam ?

Yes or No ?

Nodin

fed up sick and tired wrote: »

You're still waffling. It has nothing to do with origins, and it has nothing to do with timelines. Ilkhanid gets that, and so does Irish Trajan. What's your problem here ?

With added emphasis to help you along...



So, are you saying that in cultural and heritage terms, Catholicism and Protestantism are of no more significance to Europe than Islam ?

Yes or No ?

The desire to reduce complexity to a simple dichotomy isn't always the best thing to bring to a discussion. You're not going to get a yes or no answer, because that's not applicable here.

Historically they are of more significance given they were the majority religions, but that really means nothing as regards the "alien" notion. They were alien ideas, and at one stage so was Islam. Neither are now. If we want to say Islam is "alien" then the same 'logic' must be applied to earlier arrivals.

What, if any, religions and/or races would you like to see blocked from Europe?

opiniated

Sofiztikated wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/christian-assault-rifle-2334175-Sep2015/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Council_of_Nagaland

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/us/robert-dear-suspect-in-colorado-attack-appears-in-court.html?_r=0

Don't kid yourself that Christians are all sugar and niceness.

**** sake, even look at our own country to see what so called Christians do to each other.

So called Christians is exactly right. If they were Christians at all they'd at least work out that "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't have "unless it's a dirty x,y,z" tacked on at the end, just like "Love thy neighbour" doesn't have any exceptions tacked on , either.

fed up sick and tired

Nodin wrote: »

The desire to reduce complexity to a simple dichotomy isn't always the best thing to bring to a discussion. You're not going to get a yes or no answer, because that's not applicable here.

Historically they are of more significance given they were the majority religions, but that really means nothing as regards the "alien" notion. They were alien ideas, and at one stage so was Islam. Neither are now. If we want to say Islam is "alien" then the same 'logic' must be applied to earlier arrivals.

You are absolutely incorrect.

Culturally and in heritage terms, (which is what I explicitly asked you) Islam is alien to the European cultural tradition and inheritance in comparison with the Catholic and Protestant legacy.

Relatively, it simply has no importance. I imagine you wish it were otherwise, and I wonder why you do. But either way it is not my fault.

That is true whether you consider architecture, models of kingship and power, crime and punishment, double-entry book-keeping, Just War theory, music and literature, astronomy, philosophy... the whole range of human endeavour.

That is tacitly acknowledged by even vehement anti-religionists such as Dawkins.



I will answer your question. But I want to know why you ask, since I don't see the relevance to our conversation ?

Wurzelbert

opiniated wrote: »

So called Christians is exactly right. If they were Christians at all they'd at least work out that "Thou shalt not kill"[...]

i think the real meaning of that is “thou shalt not murder”…

Nodin

fed up sick and tired wrote: »

You are absolutely incorrect.

Culturally and in heritage terms, (which is what I explicitly asked you) Islam is alien to the European cultural tradition and inheritance in comparison with the Catholic and Protestant legacy. .

No, it merely arrived later.

fed up sick and tired wrote: »

That is true whether you consider architecture, models of kingship and power, crime and punishment, double-entry book-keeping, Just War theory, music and literature, astronomy, philosophy... the whole range of human endeavour.

That is tacitly acknowledged by even vehement anti-religionists such as Dawkins.

You seem to be saying something is "alien" due to its relative lack of influence which - again - is a fallacy.

Are you going to answer my question now? - What, if any, religions and/or races would you like to see blocked from Europe?

Or would you care to explain why you've ignored it. Either will do.

fed up sick and tired

opiniated wrote: »

So called Christians is exactly right. If they were Christians at all they'd at least work out that "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't have "unless it's a dirty x,y,z" tacked on at the end, just like "Love thy neighbour" doesn't have any exceptions tacked on , either.

If only you had been there to guide Augustine, or Aquinas.

How the course of human affairs would have been different.

Jelle1880

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The "mutants" was just a bit of 2000AD related banter earthlet.

Wrong again, they are only there because of Islamic conquest, Kosovo and Bosnia are reminders of the Islamic invasions of Europe and how deep they penetrated after they conquered Byzantium. Between their incursions into Eastern Europe and the conquest of Spain, Europe very nearly was swallowed up by Islam the way North Africa, the Middle East, Persia and India were.

I think you need to look up what 'native' means.

The Balkan people didn't just arrive with their religion after the Ottomans put them there.

They have been living there for several centuries, millenia even. They simply adopted Islam. So your claim that it's not 'native' to Europe (whatever the fck that means) doesn't hold up.

Since you seem so hellbent on proving Christianity is 'native' to Europe then i guess we can do away with millenia of paganism, acient Greek and Roman gods, Celtic polytheism,... before some guys wrote a book about an Arab Jew.

fed up sick and tired

Nodin wrote: »

You seem to be saying something is "alien" due to its relative lack of influence which - again - is a fallacy.

In what way is it a fallacy ?

It's not a 'relative' lack of influence. It is negligible to the point of being irrelevant. To the point, actually, of being 'alien'.

I don't know if that word has some negative connotation for you, I simply mean 'radically and recognisably different'. Don't get hung up on the word, please.

edit - I found a similar usage to my own in an online dictionary...

unfamiliar; strange

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/alien.

Nothing to do with proximity or longevity.


.

opiniated

fed up sick and tired wrote: »

If only you had been there to guide Augustine, or Aquinas.

How the course of human affairs would have been different.

??

Billy86

opiniated wrote: »

So called Christians is exactly right. If they were Christians at all they'd at least work out that "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't have "unless it's a dirty x,y,z" tacked on at the end, just like "Love thy neighbour" doesn't have any exceptions tacked on , either.

The Planned Parenthood shooter from just last week was a Christian too, read the whole Bible front to back and loved to tell people about it as well as being a "wholehearted believer" as per his ex-wife. But nobody seems to want to talk about that anymore...

JPNelsforearm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I think you need to look up what 'native' means.

The Balkan people didn't just arrive with their religion after the Ottomans put them there.

They have been living there for several centuries, millenia even. They simply adopted Islam. So your claim that it's not 'native' to Europe (whatever the fck that means) doesn't hold up.

Since you seem so hellbent on proving Christianity is 'native' to Europe then i guess we can do away with millenia of paganism, acient Greek and Roman gods, Celtic polytheism,... before some guys wrote a book about an Arab Jew.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes thats how it happened, the "religion of peace" just rocked up out of the blue in the 1400's and the Bosnians and Albanians jumped on board and everyone was happy as larry.....

Islam spread through conquest from Saudi Arabia, its tenants, dogma whatever are entirely of that time and region, it was spread through the sword, it has never had a place in Europe , European nations have been fighting against it since its inception and, in the macro sense, are losing..

Also, I never said christianity is native to Europe,(though you could argue it was created/curated by the Romans, New Testemant etc), the only thing I have said is that Islam has never had a place in Europe, it is entirely alien. Think you are confusing me with another poster.

Nodin

fed up sick and tired wrote: »

In what way(..........)
Nothing to do with proximity or longevity.


.

You've had your answer Sir. You seem urgent to ignore it in order to evade the question aimed at yourself....certainly that bit of ninja editing back in post 6673 suggests a sudden emergence of the notion that you need to cover yourself.

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes thats how it happened, the "religion of peace" just rocked up out of the blue in the 1400's and the Bosnians and Albanians jumped on board and everyone was happy as larry.....

Islam spread through conquest from Saudi Arabia, its tenants, dogma whatever are entirely of that time and region, it was spread through the sword, it has never had a place in Europe , European nations have been fighting against it since its inception and, in the macro sense, are losing..

Also, I never said christianity is native to Europe,(though you could argue it was created/curated by the Romans, New Testemant etc), the only thing I have said is that Islam has never had a place in Europe, it is entirely alien. Think you are confusing me with another poster.

Yes. I believe it was the first Christian Emperor - Constantine - who supposedly said that "In This Sign, Hug"

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

Yes. I believe it was the first Christian Emperor - Constantine - who supposedly said that "In This Sign, Hug"

Since when was he a "christian emperor", he was a Roman emperor who converted to christianity:rolleyes:

You are familiar with the phrase "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

There is no such distinction in Islam, government and religion are one.

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Since when was he a "christian emperor", he was a Roman emperor who converted to christianity:rolleyes:
.

And I thought it was only the man from the fantastic four that could stretch.

ilkhanid

Nodin wrote: »

No, it merely arrived later.

I fail to see how a religion based on the tribal mores of a desert culture , including baffling and antedeluvian traditions relating to archaic hygenic,linguistic and culinary practises, carrying cultural and artistic baggage-such as iconoclam- traditionally alien to European traditions and requiring the learning of a tongue from a non-European language family can have any relevance to European life or culture.. no matter when it arrived.
The fact is that religions from cultures far more distant and ostensibly alien such as Buddhism or Daoism have more traction with Europeans now. The least alien aspects of Islam to us are those that have some analogies with European mystic traditions, such as Sufi-ism.

Greentopia

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The Kurds and the Mujahideen are really not comparable. The former are nationalists who want to create their own state the latter were a rag bag fanatics from several places back by various sources (esp the Saudis) who just happened to be a handy bulwark for the USA. It would only be later they would reform as the Taliban at which point the fundamentalist ideology instilled by Saudi Wahhabi "schools" became apparent.

The Kurds only extremism is to form a homeland, and even there not all are demanding full independence, just peace and autonomy. They are certainly not interested in exporting terror against the west, and the religious mix within Kurdish Islam seems to negate the likelihood of Wahhabi style fundamentalism anyway.

Sorry to respond to a post from 2 weeks ago, doing some catching up on this loooong thread...but if I may just clarify something. The Kurds do not want to create their own state. The goal was nation statehood up until 2004 when the PKK were still Marxists but after Ocalan was imprisoned by the Turkish state and read about the works of Murray Bookchin and social ecology their objectives changed and they now no longer have as a goal that of building a nation state. The Kurds in Syria are now implementing Ocalan's vision of Bookchin's philosophical imperative in the Rojava revolution-the first large scale Anarchist society of the 21st Century.

Your second paragraph I agree entirely with. In Western Kurdistan one of the central goals of the social revolution there is religious tolerance. Their self-governed cantons have Arab Muslims, Kurds, Christians, Yazidis, Zoroastrians and many others in their official assemblies, councils and co-operatives.. The Kurds are mainly Sunni muslim, but they are for the most part, and especially in Syria and Turkey, functionally secular. They have rejected fundamentalist Islam and religion does not inform their politics.

fed up sick and tired

Nodin wrote: »

You've had your answer Sir. You seem urgent to ignore it in order to evade the question aimed at yourself....certainly that bit of ninja editing back in post 6673 suggests a sudden emergence of the notion that you need to cover yourself.

I edited the post at 2108hrs. You replied at 2109hrs. I think even you can figure it out from there.

Yes, eventually you answered the original question. Thanks. And sorry for the more nuanced and literate use of English than you were comfortable with.

Your question is irrelevant to this context, nor do I trust your motive in asking it. Actually it is straightforward stupid, but I will answer it since I have nothing to hide.

I despise all organised religion, but whatever people want to do in the privacy of their own homes or places of worship is not my business. I couldn't care less.

What is not acceptable to me is any religion that you could either name or have never heard of, which seeks to extend it's influence outside of purely doctrinal issues, and impose it's social and political worldview on wherever it locates itself.

The state should not sponsor or be involved in that, in any way. Most particularly, any belief system that cultivates anything other than a 'when in Rome...' attitude towards our society and it's norms, is not welcome. That allows more than enough scope for dissenting voices to be listened to with respect.

Your casual linking of race on all of this is sh!tty, though recognisably a tactic of yours. But anyway...

In principle I have no interest in race or skin colour whatsoever, so in principle it has no bearing for me on who can or can't come here.

Nodin

ilkhanid wrote: »

I fail to see how a religion based on the tribal mores of a desert culture , including baffling and archaic traditions relating to archaic hygenic,linguistic and culinary practises, carrying cultural and artistic baggage-such as iconoclam- traditionally alien to European traditions and requiring the learning of a tongue from a non-European language family can have any relevance to European life or culture.. no matter when it arrived. .

Ok then. You can inform the folk in the med and Balkans what part of their lives and architecture have to get the boat back.

|Fed up sick and tired wrote:

What is not acceptable to me is any religion that you could either name or have never heard of, which seeks to extend it's influence outside of purely doctrinal issues, and impose it's social and political worldview on wherever it locates itself.

I'm sure if such a thing turns up we will take steps to deal with it.

fed up sick and tired

Nodin wrote: »

I'm sure if such a thing turns up we will take steps to deal with it.

Do tell.

opiniated

Billy86 wrote: »

The Planned Parenthood shooter from just last week was a Christian too, read the whole Bible front to back and loved to tell people about it as well as being a "wholehearted believer" as per his ex-wife. But nobody seems to want to talk about that anymore...

He doesn't seem to have understood the Ten Commandments, then, does he?

JupiterKid

The huge elephant In the room is that most terrorism over the past 20 or so years has come from Islamist movements/groups.

Islam is totally alien to Europe. Europe is a largely secular continent with a Christian heritage. Islam tried repeatedly to take over Europe but failed. At one stage, Southern Spain was Islamic and in 1683 Islamic jihadis attempted (but failed) to take Vienna.

The main difference between Islam and Christanity is that Christianity had an Enlightenment in the 17th/18th century which led to church and state becoming separate. Islam has had no such Enlightenment.

walshyn93

Billy86 wrote: »

The Planned Parenthood shooter from just last week was a Christian too, read the whole Bible front to back and loved to tell people about it as well as being a "wholehearted believer" as per his ex-wife. But nobody seems to want to talk about that anymore...

Come back to me when 23 percent of American Christians sympathise with mass shootings.

Billy86

opiniated wrote: »

He doesn't seem to have understood the Ten Commandments, then, does he?

But I'm sure he fully understood a different few verses that completely contradict that, such as tends to be the case with the Bible.

Exodus 21:22-25...
“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

opiniated

Billy86 wrote: »

But I'm sure he fully understood a different few verses that completely contradict that, such as tends to be the case with the Bible.

Exodus 21:22-25...
“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Ah! Exodus! You do realise that the New Testament is the prime source for Chrisrtianity?

Where the perfect prayer says "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us?"

In any case, I'm not wasting time arguing with people who have nothing better to do than blame religion for political conflicts.

The conflict in Northern Ireland was not based on religion, it was based on two groups with different political aims, and religion was used as a quick way of identifying the "enemy".

All the whataboutery in the world wont change that.

conorhal

opiniated wrote: »

Ah! Exodus! You do realise that the New Testament is the prime source for Chrisrtianity?

Where the perfect prayer says "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us?"

In any case, I'm not wasting time arguing with people who have nothing better to do than blame religion for political conflicts.

The conflict in Northern Ireland was not based on religion, it was based on two groups with different political aims, and religion was used as a quick way of identifying the "enemy".

All the whataboutery in the world wont change that.

Christianity's saving grace is it's second act. Most of the 'terrorism based' problems of the world relate to a certian religion still wedded to Old Testement thinking.

opiniated

conorhal wrote: »

Christianity's saving grace is it's second act. Most of the 'terrorism based' problems of the world relate to a certian religion still wedded to Old Testement thinking.

Or the Old Testament reflected a particular cultural/historical viewpoint?

Anyway, that's another discussion, and one I don't have time for.

I just find it irritating when religion is blamed (wrongly) for atrocities committed that have no bearing on that religion, that's all.

Billy86

opiniated wrote: »

Or the Old Testament reflected a particular cultural/historical viewpoint?

Anyway, that's another discussion, and one I don't have time for.

I just find it irritating when religion is blamed (wrongly) for atrocities committed that have no bearing on that religion, that's all.

Yeah, abortion has no bearing on Christianity at all.

I certainly hope you're not trying to say the Old Testament laws no longer apply though, or brothers will be marrying their sisters in churches across the world before we know it! :pac:

By the way, I would generally agree about blaming religion for political conflicts, but what I find far worse than that is the hypocrisy of blaming one religion for all conflicts involving them, and completely, willfully ignoring those involving another.